First I would like to say that it should be obvious that the u.s. exerts hegemony over the rest of the world. This is known as pax americana. As a representative democracy, the u.s. has been vulnerable to those who are good at using deceit. In this case, the jews, who have been good at deciet to steal and cheat through the millenia, have adapted this skill to deceive americans into thinking what the jews want them to think. Therefore, no politician can get elected who is outside certain bounds of acceptability.

The jewish influence in the u.s. can be seen in many areas. First, they have representation in congress far out of proportion to their percentage of the u.s. population. Second, you conceded that they have undue influence in the u.s. media, which undoubtedly sways elections.

In regard to point three, obviously a group that influences the u.s. government would be able to allow massive nonwhite immigration not only into the u.s. but also other white countries. There was a law passed in 1965 in the u.s. called the chain immigration law. This law changed everything. The jews had a strong presence in the government and media in that era also (I can elaborate more later, but I will say that even Nixon indicated this in the early 1970s).

Other western countries tend to follow the u.s. lead because of its military and economic might, its prominence in NATO and the U.N., and its proven track record of intervening when someone else did not do exactly what it wanted.

To summarize: jews control major institutions in the world's most influential country ---> the immigration laws change here ---> the immigration laws change in other Western countries.

Location: Night sits measuring shadows here, Deep and stark, Where the hills are dark, With evergreen haunts for the hungry deer, So that strangers understand, Winter's claim upon the land – Ellin Anderson

Posts: 11,640

Von Braun: Other western countries tend to follow the u.s. lead because of its military and economic might, its prominence in NATO and the U.N., and its proven track record of intervening when someone else did not do exactly what it wanted.

One way to look at the Jew/Goyim relationship, is that Goyim are a massive ship, and the Jew is a small rudder. The Jew controls the ship.

If Ireland, for example, stopped taking in refuges and started returning all non-whites to where they belong, Jews would start leveraging their power in the West, via their control of the mass media, influence in Western governments, control of financial institutions -- to punish Ireland.

Location: Night sits measuring shadows here, Deep and stark, Where the hills are dark, With evergreen haunts for the hungry deer, So that strangers understand, Winter's claim upon the land – Ellin Anderson

Posts: 11,640

hangman: [according to many WN] the Jews are working together in a massive conspiracy to seize control of the world, to wipe out the "white race".

By design, multi-culturalism involves the racial destruction of the West.

Read the writings of Jewish intellectuals over the centuries. They believe that their race has a divine calling. This calling is to be the shepherd over the goyim: God's chosen people, etc.

This has manifested itself twice in the last 100 years. First, in the human meat grider that we called the Soviet Union. This was a Jewish project to reshape man, to improve man as an altruistic, peaceful proletariat: this was suppose to be the recreation of Paradise. Jews of all political, economic, and spiritual stripes participated in this: Jewish bankers financed the revolution, athiest Jews lead the revolution, filled up the commisariat, created and administered the Gulag.... Jews outside of the Soviet Union spied for it, made leftist films, (9 out of the 10 Hollywood ten were Jews), etc.

The other attempt at their divine calling is multiculturalism, another Jewish creation. Jewish intellectuals created the philosophy, Jewish media owners push the philoshophy, Jews fund multi-cultural projects and institutions....

When Jews SCREAM! when Austrians try to stop non-whites from immigrating into Austria, the Jews are SCREAMING! their desire to racially destroy Austria.

Originally posted by Von Braun I have four points to make pertaining to jews actively attempting to lower our overall percentage of the world population as well as our percentages in our respective countries. The fifth point is relevant now and will be very relevant when our percentages are much lower.

1) Jews cause a lower-than-normal birthrate for whites through their involvement in various social trends, particularly the feminist movement, the hippy-turned-yuppy mainstream subculture, etc.

2) Jews encourage a high birth rate for non-whites who live in white countries via their involvement in politics in white countries (welfare, affirmative action, etc.).

3) Jews are responsible for massive non-white immigration into every single white country on earth.

4) Jews promote miscegenation between whites and non-whites via their control of the media in white countries. For documentation of their control of the media in the u.s., see this.

5) Jews are behind gun control efforts in white countries. Furthermore, they try to disguise this fact by having a small percentage of their tribe pose as "jews against gun control" who then go to gunshows to harasss white nationalists who have set up tables.

Anyone of reasonable intelligence should see how points one through four cause our percentages to dwindle. When and if we are small enough in our respective countries, jews will attempt to kill the last of us off directly or indirectly through nonwhite violence. If jews succeed at killing us, after having used us to destroy the other race that can put up a fight (northeast asians), jews will have their long-sought-after world domination and enslavement of all non-jews. I have heard much talk about the war with China that "everyone knows is coming." Since jews control the u.s., they will no doubt be behind this war, not only to destroy the yellow man, but also to severely weaken the white man further (in addition to what points one through four cause).

Assuming, momentarily, for the sake of argument, that what you write there is true, I'd like to know if you believe that nationalism is a better answer to such problems than is imperialism. It seems to me that nationalism is more likely to be less resistant to divisiveness among various white ethnic groups than is imperialism, where large conflicts are involved.

Assuming, momentarily, for the sake of argument, that what you write there is true, I'd like to know if you believe that nationalism is a better answer to such problems than is imperialism. It seems to me that nationalism is more likely to be less resistant to divisiveness among various white ethnic groups than is imperialism, where large conflicts are involved.

I don't see that as being much of a problem in america, aside from a few recent slavic immigrants. We're all pretty much dissolved here into a big europid blob, and it won't be long until the slavs join in.

Originally posted by Joey Assuming, momentarily, for the sake of argument, that what you write there is true, I'd like to know if you believe that nationalism is a better answer to such problems than is imperialism. It seems to me that nationalism is more likely to be less resistant to divisiveness among various white ethnic groups than is imperialism, where large conflicts are involved.

I don't see that as being much of a problem in america, aside from a few recent slavic immigrants. We're all pretty much dissolved here into a big europid blob, and it won't be long until the slavs join in.

I'm not saying that America is exactly the exception which proves the rule, but I think a number of things make America somewhat unique, in terms of an understanding of the divisiveness of nationalism, as opposed to the potentially stronger unifying influence of Imperialism. I think of Europe, in terms of what a WN section of the world might resemble, should WN gain wider acceptance. Europe wound up being conquered and re-conquered time and time again. It seems that when the countries were all fairly autonomous, they also seemed more vulnerable to attack, and they seemed to fight amongst themselves very often. Why should we expect that to change in a WN world? If, in the past white nation fought white nation for various reasons, why, even if all the non-whites are forced to leave white nations, should we believe that they wouldn't just take up where they left off before the New World was discovered. Even now in places like Ulster and Spain, whites live in areas where domestic terrorism has taken place, apparently because of white politics. That reminds me of Tim McVeigh. And America incarcerates more of it's citizens than any nation in the industrialized world, I believe is how that figure now stands. One might say that the reason America doesn't have more trouble with internal divisions is because it isn't shy about building prisons. Before the civil rights era, and still today, to a certain extent, white ethnic groups disparaged and abused each other. Anti-Irish sentiment made NINA (no Irish need apply) signs common, from what I've heard in American shop windows in the nineteenth century. Civil war buffs, some of them anyway, claim that that war was fought over the federal government's role in society, rather than about slavery, water disputes, food shortages, outbreaks of disease, in a land made up of a number of small ethnic nations, any or all of those things might lead to more ethnic conflict. England and Scotland and Wales and Cornwall and Ulster have been governed under the same flag for more than a century, and yet, separatist feeling in all of those places seems to be present, and the fact that the devolution of power to Wales, and Scotland at least, is proceeding, seems to be evidence to me that whites enjoy distinguishing their own ethnic group from other white ethnic groups to a very great degree. Those divisions might lead to less willingness to help out other white ethnic groups, and the sectarianism might allow a sort of "domino effect" to happen to white states for a number of reasons. An empire, it seems to me, provides the necessary cohesion and diversity to deal with a large number of exigencies. A nation, it seems to me, is less well equipped should some really big events occur.

"The jewish influence in the u.s. can be seen in many areas. First, they have representation in congress far out of proportion to their percentage of the US population..
Second, you concede they have undue influence in the US media which undoubtedly sways elections.
In regard to point three, obviously a group that influences the US government would be able to allow massive nonwhite immigration not only into the US but also other white countries

Quite using words like "obviously". OK, so you established the following:
A) "their proportion to US population outweighs their representation in congress". So does that necessarily mean every congressperson is jewish? I guess each congress person has a strig attatched to their back by a jewish puppetier..Just because jews may be out of proportion doesn't mean they control the government...Blacks also have out of proportion representation. This is otherwise known as a hasty conclusion.

B) "they have undue influence in the media". OK so they have influence. If that means through media they have created ZOG, then why do you mince your words? Why not say they totally control the media or totally own the governmet. As in part A), you base your entire argument on circumstantial evidence..."he was there at the scene of the crime..,that means he did it" etc. What about ratings? Are the american people just totally brainwashed by what they see on TV or is there a feedback loop via ratings? If they do totally control electronic communications, how do you become such an exception, Von Braun?

C)"Obviously a group that influences the US government would allow massive nonwhite immigration": can a group that only influences something 'allow' it to happen? This seems contradictory. You seem to be hedgy.

What you've proven is you have little understanding of the political process which rarely makes anyone happy. You should hear the posts of the Left right now. With the republican victory they're crying like it's 1933 Germany! Politicians try to link concerns to maximize support for themselves within the electorate. Whatever is done to appease American Juden is done with other groups, also powerful and influential, in mind. Example: politicians pass liberal immigration laws. Why? To make democratic jews happy but also to win latino votes and cheapen labor for business like high tech and resturaunts. Here we notice the multifaceted nature of American democracy. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean a great Jewish conspirarchy lurks behind it.

Here's a clear fact:

ZOG is a cop-out. It only explains WN apathy. The truth is there's, sadly, many whites who support things like affirmitive action and immigration policy. Why? Lots of reasons..maybe they just want others to know they're generous, good people instead of a SOB like myself...

ZOG is a fatalisitic attitude: IF everything is controlled by jews in America, then there is no point in me voting against immigration policies and politicians who support them, etc..

Worst, ZOG encourages white youth and activists into counter-productive revolutionary positions that just get idealistic white kids into trouble.

Originally posted by quietwalker
Assuming, momentarily, for the sake of argument, that what you write there is true, I'd like to know if you believe that nationalism is a better answer to such problems than is imperialism. It seems to me that nationalism is more likely to be less resistant to divisiveness among various white ethnic groups than is imperialism, where large conflicts are involved.